[7] Charles Bazerman's examination of the evolution of the varieties of writing characterized as experimental report through the first century and a half of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, the formation of social roles and norms concerning the publication of this journal, the Physical Review since its founding in 1893, and the evolution of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, along with scrutiny of works by Newton and Compton, and an analysis of the reading habits of physicists indicate the many social, organizational, ideological, political, theoretical, methodological, evidentiary, intertextual and intellectual factors that have influenced the character of writing and rhetoric.
[8][9] Bazerman's work has built upon these studies to consider the way knowledge is methodically produced and communicatively circulated in various activity systems.
Kuhn first examines "normal" science, that is, practices which he considered routine, patterned and accessible with a specific method of problem-solving.
[12]: 162 In this instance, Michael Polanyi's influence on Kuhn becomes apparent; that is, his acknowledgement of the importance of inherited practices and rejection of absolute objectivity.
As evidenced by the early theory papers after Kuhn's seminal work, the idea that rhetoric is crucial to science became much discussed.
The major question is whether training in rhetoric can in fact help scholars and investigators make intelligent choices between rival theories, methods or data collection, and incommensurate values (Simons 14).
Its task then is the rhetorical reconstruction of the means by which scientists convince themselves and others that their knowledge claims and assertions are an integral part of privileged activity of the community of thinkers with which they are allied (Gross "The Origin" 91).
In an article titled "On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic" (1967), Robert L. Scott offers "that truth can arise only from cooperative critical inquiry" (Harris "Knowing" 164).
This train of thought goes back to Gorgias who noted that truth is a product of discourse, not a substance added to it (Harris "Knowing" 164).
Toulmin's main contribution is his notion of argument fields that included a reinvention of the rhetorical concept topoi (topics).
He delineated two concepts of argumentation, one which relied on universal (field-invariant) appeals and strategies, and one which was field dependent, particular to disciplines, movements, and the like.
In this instance, Toulmin echoes Feyerabend, who in his preoccupation with suasive processes, makes clear the adaptive nature of persuasion.
[2]: xxv Toulmin's ideas pertaining to argument were a radical import to argumentation theory because, in part, he contributes a model, and because he contributes greatly to rhetoric and its subfield, rhetoric of science, by providing a model of analysis (data, warrants) to show that what is argued on a subject is in effect a structured arrangement of values that are purposive and lead to a certain line of thought.
The objective is to render description of these disciplines intact – that is to say, the goal of finding language that would make various scientific topics "commensurable" (Baake 29).
Two important authors who applied incommensurability to historical and philosophical notions of science during the 1960s are Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend.
[2]: xiii Kuhn's Structure provides important accounts related to the concept representation, and the key conceptual changes that occur during a scientific revolution.
He gives attention to the revolutionary changes that came about as a result of the work of Nicolaus Copernicus, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Wilhelm Röntgen, and Antoine Lavoisier.
Some scholars, like Thomas C. Walker, feel that Kuhn's theory of paradigms implies knowledge that is "gained in small, incremental, and almost unremarkable installments."
Walker states that while "normal science is narrow, rigid, esoteric, uncritical, and conservative, Kuhn considers it to be the most efficient way to ensure a cumulation of knowledge."
According to Walker, while "ignorance and intolerance toward other theoretical frameworks are regrettable features of Kuhn's normal science...meaningful conversations can only occur within a single paradigm.
"[26] Kuhn's work was influential for rhetoricians, sociologists, and historians (and, in a lesser manner, philosophers) for the development of a rhetorical perspective.
His opinion concerning perception, concept acquisition and language suggest, according to Paul Hoyningen-Huene's analysis of Kuhn's philosophy, a cognitive perspective.
Rhetorical criticism of science offers much in the investigation of scientific matters that impinge directly upon public opinion and policy-making decisions.
Theodosius Dobzhansky in Genetics and the Origin of Species offers a means of reconciliation between Mendelian mutation and Darwinian natural selection.
By remaining sensitive to the interests of naturalists and geneticists, Dobzhansky – through a subtle strategy of polysemy [jargon] – allowed a peaceful solution to a battle between two scientific territories.
[28]: 41, 53 The building blocks of Dobzhansky's interdisciplinary influence that included much development in two scientific camps were the result of the compositional choices he made.
He uses, for instance, prolepsis[jargon] to make arguments that introduced his research findings, and he provided a metaphoric map as a means to guide his audience.
Work in this area often draws on scholarship by Bruno Latour, Steve Woolgar, Annemarie Mol, and other new materialist scholars from science and technology studies.
[32]: 77 Dilip Gaonkar's provocations have begun a broad reaching discussion that resulted in the defense of rhetoric analyses of scientific discourse.